Supreme Court confirms not guilty for merchants raising mask prices and storing excess quantities... "Lack of evidence for crime"

Purchased before the COVID-19 outbreak, considering there is only one employee

On the morning of March 6, 2020, when masks were in short supply, citizens lined up in front of a pharmacy near Jongno 5-ga, Seoul, to purchase masks.

[Asia Economy Reporter Choi Seok-jin, Legal Affairs Specialist] A mask seller who was caught storing about 20,000 masks in violation of a government notice in early 2020, when COVID-19 cases surged and a 'mask shortage' occurred, was acquitted.

The court reasoned that the masks stored at the time had been purchased long before the COVID-19 outbreak, and since there was only one employee, it was difficult to suddenly increase sales volume, making it hard to view the hoarding as intentional for profiteering.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Min Yoo-sook) announced on the 16th that it upheld the acquittal verdict of the lower court, which found insufficient evidence of the crime in the appeal trial of mask seller A, who was charged with violating the Price Stabilization Act.

The court stated, "The lower court found no proof of the crime regarding the charges in this case and thus acquitted the defendant, maintaining the first trial's judgment. Reviewing the reasons for the lower court's ruling in light of relevant laws and records, there is no error in the lower court's judgment that violates the rules of logic and experience or exceeds the limits of free evaluation of evidence."

A, a telemarketing seller of health masks in Seobuk-gu, Cheonan-si, was prosecuted on charges of hoarding 21,650 masks including KF80 by storing them for more than five days, exceeding 286.44% of the average monthly sales volume of 8,065 units by 150% from January to March 19, 2020, when the domestic spread of COVID-19 began.

According to the Ministry of Strategy and Finance's notice at the time, mask sellers were prohibited from storing more than 150% of their average monthly sales volume for over five days.

The prosecution charged A, citing that he raised the mask price from 609 to 779 won per unit before the COVID-19 outbreak to 3,100 to 4,300 won per unit?more than five times higher?and despite having sufficient stock, posted "temporarily out of stock" on the shopping mall site and responded to customers' inquiries about restocking with inaccurate statements such as "We are sorry we cannot confirm the restock date yet," and "Even suppliers are having a hard time getting masks these days."

However, the first trial court accepted A's claim that "although it is true that masks were stored beyond the allowed limit as the prosecution stated, it was not hoarding for profiteering" and acquitted him.

The court judged that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient for the crime for the following reasons.

First, the masks A stored were purchased between February and early April 2019, when the COVID-19 outbreak was completely unforeseeable, and A did not purchase masks after late January 2020 when the outbreak began. Also, A did not stop selling masks even after the outbreak, which the court considered grounds to conclude that A did not hoard masks with the intent to profiteer.

A sold a total of 75,714 masks from March to December 2019 and sold 21,069 masks from January to March 2020, when the storage exceeding the notice limit was an issue, maintaining a similar sales level as usual.

Additionally, the court found that since A's shopping mall was operated by only one employee, it was practically impossible to rapidly increase sales volume.

The court also judged that the price increase was a result of supply shortages relative to demand, and it was difficult to see that A intentionally set prices significantly higher than other sellers.

The court acknowledged that A posted false responses to customers' inquiries about mask restocking. However, it viewed this as an attempt by A, who operated the shopping mall with one employee, to regulate order volume by accepting only as many orders as could be fulfilled and to avoid revealing the small scale of the shopping mall to customers, rather than an intent to hoard masks for profiteering.

The appellate court also concluded that there was no problem with the first trial's judgment.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.